Facts are still thin, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the recent killings in Texas (DA, wife and Prosecutor) are #1 related and #2 retribution.
Have you noted how many in the "Liberty Sphere" are distancing themselves from that possibility and their own positions? Bob Owens, who I read and is on my blogroll, dropped the T word - Terrorism.
Let me go Socratic for a moment:
Is it "Terrorism" to kill someone who is attempting to infringe, or has infringed, a Natural or Constitutional Right?
Is it self defense if you do it during the infringement? Is it immoral to seek retribution if you have been infringed and go hunting after the fact?
If "Government" passes a law that infringes Natural or Constitutional Law, and then begins to enforce those laws, and you know that prison is imminent for getting caught breaking those laws and the Courts will not defend your Natural or Constitutional Rights - is it "Terrorism" or even immoral to defend yourself? To get payback if you have been infringed?
This topic - self defense in relation to your Natural and Constitutional Rights - is where those who believe in Rightful Liberty will separate from the rest of the herd. Especially when one begins speaking of supporting actors and beneficiaries of those infringements - such as Courthouse clerks and wives.
Here's the link to the Owens piece.
**UPDATE** And here is an Owens piece he just wrote that explains why I read they guy's words.
I'm not sure how he reconciles the first piece with the second, for the "fight" to which he refers in piece #2 is against the very people he seems to take out of the targeting matrix in piece #1.
But I'll keep reading to see where he draws his lines.
Kerodin
III
